Even a cursory look at the first resolutions adopted by the Hindu Mahasbha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Muslim League and the speeches made by their leaders prove beyond doubt that all of them were stooges of the British empire and were assisting their masters in implementing the policy of divide and rule.

The successors of these anti-national elements are once again trying to divide the Indian people on religious lines and provoke communal conflict across India so that the present rulers can silently sell off the country’s assets to foreign interests.

Consider the following:

  • In April 1915 the All India Conference of the Hindus was convened during Kumbh Mela at Hardwar. (This led to the formation of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1921.) This is what the president of the conference – Munindra Chandra Nundi, Maharaja of Kashimbazar, said in his inaugural address: “As Hindus we are loyal to the King Emperor and the Government by virtue of our religion and our prayers are rising day and night to the most High for the victory of the British and of our allies.”
  • During the Quit India movement, Syama Prasad Mukherjee, then the working president of Hindu Masbha wrote a letter to the British Government on how to crush the agitation. This is what he wrote in his letter (dated July 26, 1942): “Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody, who during the war, plans to stir up mass feeling, resulting internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being.”
  • D Savarkar’s mercy petition from jail to the British government is now relatively well known. What is not so well known is his view on the patriotic youth of the country, who were being systematically hanged by the British. This is what Savarkar said: “Being anti-British was equated with patriotism and nationalism. This reactionary view has had disastrous effects upon the entire course of the independence struggle, its leaders and the common people”. (V.D. Savarkar,Historic Statements, 1957)
  • And this is how Savarkar pleaded with the British in his mercy petition: “Therefore if the government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me, I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English government… If we be released the people will instinctively raise a shout of joy and gratitude to the government…. Moreover my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide. I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like… The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the Government?
    Hoping your Honour will kindly take into notion these points.”
    (Petition from V D Savarkar (Convict No. 32778) to the Home Member of the Government of India, dated the 14th November, 1913.)
  • The RSS/BJP’s vision of a Hindu state was designed by their ‘Guruji’ M.S. Golwalkar, the second RSS chief. In his We, or Our Nation defined, Golwalkar unhesitatingly says what the plight of Muslims and other non-Hindus would be in a Hindu Rashtra: “The non-Hindu people of Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn and respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but of those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture … In a word they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizens’ rights”.
  • In “We“, Golwalkar called the 1930s Nazi campaign against Jews and Gypsies “..a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by. There are only two courses open to these foreign elements – either to merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture or to live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and quit the country at the sweet will of the national race.”
  • Golwalkar’s sick views were further expressed in theBunch of Thoughts. This is what he said about the Chinese, who were fighting for communism: “They eat rats, pigs, dogs, serpents, cockroaches, and everything. Such men cannot be expected to have human qualities”.

The Muslim League played an equally anti-national role as a British stooge during India’s freedom struggle.


  • At its inaugural session in Dhaka (old spellingDacca) on December 30, 1906, the Muslim League passed several resolutions defining its objectives, the first of which was: “To promote, among the Musalmans of India, feelings of loyalty to the British Government, and to remove any misconception that may arise as to the intention of Government with regard to any of its measures.”
  • The resolutions were moved by Nawab Salim-ullah Bahadur of Dhaka, who made a speech explaining these objectives. This is what he said: “In 1893,we were naturally very anxious to impress upon the British Government that we were loyal subjects and law-abiding citizens, for it was considered that our rulers had some doubts on the subject… Today the aspect of affairs has greatly changed. The Government has been convinced of our steadfast loyalty under the most trying situations.”
  • At the sixth session of the Muslim League, held in Lucknow in March 1913, Mian Mohammad Shafi, in his presidential address, said: “But what, you will ask, is my conception of loyalty to the British Crown? In my humble judgment, it is the paramount duty of every loyal subject of the King Emperor to abstain from doing anything calculated to impair the permanence and stability of British rule in India.”

How should we deal with these people? We leave it to the readers to decide.